Search

Purpose: Salvage radical prostatectomy is rare due to the risk of postoperative complications. We compare salvage Retzius-sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (SRS-RARP) with salvage standard robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (SS-RARP). Materials and Methods: A total of 72 patients across 9 centers were identified (40 SRS-RARP vs 32 SS-RARP). Demographics, perioperative data, and pathological and functional outcomes were compared using Student's t-test and ANOVA. Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to assess risk of incontinence and time to continence. Linear regression models were constructed to investigate postoperative pad use and console time. Results: Median followup was 23 vs 36 months for SRS-RARP vs SS-RARP. Console time and estimated blood loss favored SRS-RARP. There were no differences in complication rates or oncologic outcomes. SRS-RARP had improved continence (78.4% vs 43.8%, p 0-1 pad (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.79, p=0.016), although not when defined as >0 pad (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.01, p=0.053). On adjusted analysis SRS-RARP was associated with decreased pads per day. Lymph node dissection and primary treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy were associated with longer console time. Conclusions: SRS-RARP is a feasible salvage option with significantly improved urinary function outcomes. This may warrant increased utilization of SRS-RARP to manage men who fail nonsurgical primary treatment for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The digital rectal exam (DRE), as a component of prostate cancer screening, may have predictive value complementary to or independent of serum prostate-specific antigen (...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is reported to improve urinary functional outcomes faster over standard RARP. However, there are reports of...

While higher radical prostatectomy hospital and surgeon volume are associated with better outcomes, the effect of provider volume on health care costs remains unclear. We performed a population based study to characterize the effect of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs.We used SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare linked data to identify 11,048 men who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2003 to 2009. We categorized hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume into tertiles (low, intermediate, high) and assessed costs from radical prostatectomy until 90 days postoperatively using propensity adjusted analyses.Higher surgeon volume at intermediate volume hospitals (surgeon volume low $9,915; intermediate $10,068; high $9,451; p = 0.021) and high volume hospitals (surgeon volume low $11,271; intermediate $10,638; high $9,529; p = 0.002) was associated with lower radical prostatectomy costs. Extrapolating nationally, selective referral to high volume radical prostatectomy surgeons at high and intermediate volume hospitals netted more than $28.7 million in cost savings. Conversely, higher hospital volume was associated with greater radical prostatectomy costs for low volume surgeons (hospital volume low $9,685; intermediate $9,915; high $11,271; p = 0.010) and intermediate volume surgeons (hospital volume low $9,605; intermediate $10,068; high $10,638; p = 0.029). High volume radical prostatectomy surgeon costs were not affected by varying hospital volume, and among low volume hospitals radical prostatectomy costs did not differ by surgeon volume.Selective referral to high volume radical prostatectomy surgeons operating at intermediate and high volume hospitals nets significant cost savings. However, higher radical prostatectomy hospital volume was associated with greater costs for low and intermediate volume radical prostatectomy surgeons.

Studies comparing pain after minimally invasive vs retropubic and perineal radical prostatectomy are conflicting. We characterized population based outpatient narcotic prescribing patterns after minimally invasive, retropubic and perineal radical prostatectomy.We evaluated outpatient prescription data after minimally invasive, retropubic and perineal radical prostatectomy from 2003 to 2006 using MarketScan®. Baseline and postoperative narcotic prescriptions were identified using the National Drug Code. Total prescribed narcotic strength in morphine sulfate equivalents, the number of prescriptions filled and costs were compared. We performed multivariate analysis adjusted for surgical approach, age, comorbidity, baseline narcotic use, health plan and geographic region.We identified 2,206 minimally invasive, 8,037 retropubic and 463 perineal radical prostatectomies with no differences in baseline narcotic prescription use. Perineal and retropubic operations were associated with greater total morphine sulfate equivalent use than the minimally invasive operation. Perineal prostatectomy was associated with more narcotic refills than minimally invasive and retropubic prostatectomy (42.3% vs 20.2% and 28.9%, respectively, p0.001). Median narcotic costs were lower for minimally invasive than for perineal and retropubic prostatectomy. On adjusted analysis perineal radical prostatectomy, younger age, baseline narcotic use and preferred provider organization health plan were associated with greater morphine sulfate equivalents and narcotic refills while minimally invasive surgery was associated with fewer refills and lower costs but not with total morphine sulfate equivalents. There was significant geographic variation in narcotic use and costs.Postoperatively minimally invasive radical prostatectomy required fewer narcotic refills and had lower narcotic costs while perineal radical prostatectomy required the greatest amount of narcotics. However, minimally invasive vs retropubic radical prostatectomy morphine sulfate equivalent requirements did not differ on adjusted analysis. While our findings support the purported advantage of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy of less postoperative pain, confirmatory prospective studies with objective outcomes are needed.

Development of new renal tumors or recurrence after radio frequency ablation not amendable for repeat ablation presents a difficult therapeutic dilemma. We report on the outcomes of partial nephrectomy on kidneys previously treated with radio frequency ablation.We performed a chart review of 13 patients who underwent 16 attempted partial nephrectomies following radio frequency ablation. Hospital records and operative reports were reviewed for demographic data, perioperative data and outcomes. The outcomes of the present series were compared to historical controls of published studies in similar patient populations.No cases were converted to radical nephrectomy. Median time from radio frequency ablation to surgery was 2.75 years (range 1 to 7.1). A median of 7 tumors (range 2 to 40) were removed with a median estimated blood loss of 1,500 ml (range 500 to 3,500) and a median operative time of 7.8 hours (range 5 to 10.7). Operative notes commented on the presence of severe fibrosis in the operative field in 12 of 16 cases (75%). There was a modest but statistically significant decrease in renal function. Partial nephrectomy after radio frequency ablation had a higher reoperation rate compared to other series of primary or repeat partial nephrectomies but had the lowest rate of vascular or visceral injuries.Partial nephrectomy on kidneys previously treated with radio frequency ablation is a technically challenging but feasible procedure. Residual or metachronous disease after radio frequency ablation may be salvaged with partial nephrectomy with a modest decrease in renal function. A trend toward a higher chance of reoperation and urine leak after partial nephrectomy after radio frequency ablation may be useful information for the planning and discussion of treatment decisions.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Gleason score from biopsy specimens is important for prostate cancer risk stratification and influences treatment decisions. Gleason score upgrading (GSU) between biopsy and surgical pathology specimens has been reported as high as 50% and presents a challenge in counseling low-risk patients. While recent studies have investigated predictors of GSU, populations in these studies have been largely Caucasian. We report our analysis of predictors of GSU in a large urban African-American population across two institutions. METHODS: A total of 959 patients with DAEAmico low risk prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between January 2005 and July 2012. Race, age, PSA, body mass index, CAPRA score and TRUS biopsy characteristics (number of reported biopsy cores showing adenocarcinoma, highest percent of biopsy core positive for adenocarcinoma, and measured TRUS prostate volume) were analyzed with both univariate and multivariate analysis to identify significant predictors of GSU while controlling for clinical parameters. RESULTS: Of the 959 cases, 288 (30.0%) were upgraded on final pathologic specimen, while the remaining 671 had the same Gleason sum as the preoperative biopsy. (Table 1) Our patient population consisted of 40.0% African-Americans and 42.0 of the AfricanAmerican population showed GSU. Mean Gleason score for those who were upgraded was 7.24. Upon univariate and multivariate analysis, BMI, total positive biopsy cores, percent of core involved with cancer, CAPRA score, and smaller prostate volume were statistically significant in the upgraded cohort. Patients who upgraded tended to be of higher BMI and of African-American descent in our analysis. Transrectal biopsies of these patients showed smaller prostate volumes but higher cores positive with high % disease per core. CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of low-risk prostate cancer patients were upgraded on final pathology in our series. Higher BMI and CAPRA score, smaller prostate volume and total number of cores and percent of cores involved were independent predictors of GSU. Individuals, especially African-Americans, with those clinical parameters may harbor occult high-grade disease and should be carefully counseled on treatment decisions.

Purpose: We reviewed the erosion rate of the double cuff artificial urinary sphincter.Materials and Methods: Charts of 95 patients were evaluated for erosions and underlying etiology.Results: Ten patients had erosion of the cuffs, for an erosion rate of 10.5 percent. Of the 10 erosions 4 (40 percent) were secondary to iatrogenic injuries.Conclusions: Addition of a second cuff to the artificial urinary sphincter remains a safe alternative for patients with severe urinary stress incontinence.